IPCC Climate Model Projections Diverging from Reality

The plot of the 2007 IPCC (GCM model) temperature projection is presented in green. The red plot represents temperature observations to the end of 2011. It is clear that the green IPCC projection -- with a wide error allowance -- is diverging ever upward from the observed temperatures.

Nicola Scafetta's harmonic model is plotted as a black wavy line surrounded by a blue error range.

Scafetta Harmonic Model WUWT

The [Scafetta] model was able not only to reconstruct the decadal patterns of the temperature since 1850 better than any general circulation model (GCM) adopted by the IPCC in 2007, but it is apparently able to better forecast the temperature decadal/multidecadal pattern observed since 2000. Note that since 2000 my proposed model is a full forecast.

However, will the forecast hold, or my proposed model is just another failed attempt to forecast climate change at least roughly? Time will tell. _WUWT Nicola Scafetta

Scafetta Harmonic Model WUWT
The humorous facet of this affair is that the 2007 IPCC GCM model did very well at "predicting" the climate prior to 2007! It is only after the model was forced to project into the future (rather than the past) that its projections began to swing widely away from actual observed temperatures.

Notice how the Scafetta harmonic model temperatures seem to dive abruptly after the year 2024.

So just using your eyeballs to evaluate the comparative trends, which model appears to match observed temperatures better: The IPCC's highly sophisticated global circulation model (GCM), which is very sensitive to rising CO2 levels and positive feedbacks, or Scafetta's much simpler harmonic model, which is based instead on multiple overlapping natural cycles?

Global Cooling: A Return to the Age of a Frozen Thames?

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century. _DailyMail

A Frozen Thames During Little Ice Age DailyMail

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

...According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid. _DailyMail

Using the Livingston and Penn Solar Cycle 25 amplitude estimate, this is what the solar cycle record is projected to look like:

Slowing Sun, Cooling Climate WUWT
And, yes, that means the end of the Modern Warm Period. _WUWT David Archibald

Normal Temperature Fluctuation Daily Mail
This graph indicates what global temperatures have done since 1997. Rather than shooting skyward as the "hockey stick" graphs of IPCC fame predicted, temperatures have rather plateau'd, and may be trending downward.

400 Years of Sunspots DailyMailIt is too early to predict whether the sun is approaching a multi-decadal "Dalton Minimum" type decline in activity, or whether it may be on the verge of a more extended "Maunder Minimum" type decline. The difference between the two could be quite important, and solar physicists and astronomers are beginning to take notice.

On the global climate front, ocean scientists are already beginning to note that improved ocean heat content measurements are failing to confirm high priced computer climate models.

WUWT Ocean Temps Diverge From Model Predictions
Because ocean temperatures exhibit a "thermal flywheel effect," ocean temperatures can continue to gradually warm for some time after incoming solar energy has declined. Water, with a 4X higher specific heat than air, takes longer to reverse a temperature trend.

Of course there is a lot more going on with the climate than solar cycles. But thanks to the impressive solar changes that we are witnessing, we may be closer to seeing who the big boss of the climate truly is.

But since many hundreds of billions of dollars in carbon taxes, carbon trades, carbon reparations, and carbon hysteria oriented research are at stake, do not expect the orthodoxy of climate alarmism to take all of this lying down, frozen Thames or no frozen Thames.

Curse Those Damned Criegee Biradicals and the Damned Clouds Too!

The researchers found that the Criegee biradicals react more rapidly than first thought and will accelerate the formation of sulphate and nitrate in the atmosphere. These compounds will lead to aerosol formation and ultimately to cloud formation with the potential to cool the planet. _SciTechDaily

National Post
In light of Dr. David Whitehouse winning his bet with warminst James Annan, having been proved correct that there would be no new global warming records set by 2011, it is long past time for the IPCC Orthodoxy of Climate Hysteria to revisit its scientific theories of global climate.

In keeping with the observed lack of predicted warming over the past several years, a recent scientific discovery of natural molecules in the atmosphere which seem to exert a cooling effect suggests that the science is not at all settled, and the debate is certainly not over.

Artificial Method of Generating Clouds by Aerosol Spray
Scientists and engineers who are worried about runaway global warming -- an unlikely event, by the way -- have suggested a wide range of geoengineering schemes, including the aerosol spray seen above, and the atmospheric reflectors pictured below.

J. Storrs Hall Aerostats
But the discovery of the Criegee biradicals raises the question of whether instead of runaway warming, we should be worried about runaway cooling instead! Apparently these biradicals are generated naturally by plants -- plants which may have developed a grudge against humans based upon a long history of being eaten by them. If the plants get angry enough, who knows what they might do?

The planet seems to be in the middle of a cooling climate phase, triggered by a lull in cyclic solar activity. The CERN CLOUD study suggests as much. Even worse, the more time that goes by, the more overdue we will be for the next glacial age. And if you want to talk about global killers, global warming cannot hold a candle to massive glaciation.

What will the IPCC Orthodoxy of Carbon Hysteria do if forced to confront its own sloppy science, failed predictions, and desperate need for an overhaul of its climate theories? It really doesn't matter. Because what we will be told by our overlords is that whether it is global warming or global cooling, the solution is still the same: Transfer hundreds of billions of dollars per year from western nations to emerging and third world nations, using the UN as an intermediary and distributor of funding.

But they will still curse the damned sceptics, the Criegee biradicals, cosmic rays, and anything else that causes them undue work and revisioning. Who do these little people think they are, next to the Orthodoxy? Who indeed?

UK Met Office Warns of Little Ice Age Conditions

The sun has been behaving in odd ways recently, strangely reminiscent of the solar slowdown which accompanied the "little ice age" 300 years ago, seen on the graphic below.

Solar Output Varies With Climate
The UK Meteorologic Office is warning of expected extreme cold winter conditions due to natural cyclic phenomena.

The climate phenomenon, characterised by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the Pacific, was linked to our icy winter last year – one of the coldest on record.

And it coincides with research from the Met Office indicating the nation could be facing a repeat of the “little ice age” that gripped the country 300 years ago, causing decades of harsh winters.

The prediction, to be published in Nature magazine, is based on observations of a slight fall in the sun’s emissions of ultraviolet radiation, which may, over a long period, trigger Arctic conditions for many years. _Express

Until recently, natural climatic cycles have taken a backseat to carbon hysteria, with most "climate scientologists" and their kin in the media frenzy racket. But with recent odd behaviour coming from the sun, along with an obvious global cooling trend occurring throughout the 21st century, natural climate cycles have become more difficult for climate scientologists to deny. The phony climate consensus is growing strained.

Planet Earth at the Mercy of Mysterious Cosmic Forces

Physorg
New research from the international physics research center in Geneva, CERN, reveals that the atmosphere of planet Earth is susceptible to the cloud-forming effects of galactic cosmic rays. Cloud formation has long been considered by the IPCC to be the greatest uncertainty in the modeling of climate, and now it seems that climate modelers will need to go back to the drawing boards.

Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth – in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia – always knew that Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases.

In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk – and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise.

For the dam that was meant to ward off a growing stream of discoveries coming from the spring in Copenhagen, the foundation was laid on the day after the Danes first announced the link between cosmic rays and clouds at a space conference in Birmingham, England, in 1996. “Scientifically extremely naïve and irresponsible,”Bert Bolin declared, as Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

As several journalists misbehaved by reporting the story from Birmingham, the top priority was to tame the media. The first courses of masonry ensured that anything that Svensmark and his colleagues might say would be ignored or, failing that, be promptly rubbished by a warmist scientist. Posh papers like The Times of London and the New York Times, and posh TV channels like the BBC’s, readily fell into line. Enthusiastically warmist magazines like New Scientist and Scientific Americanneeded no coaching.

Similarly the journals Nature and Science, which in my youth prided themselves on reports that challenged prevailing paradigms, gladly provided cement for higher masonry, to hold the wicked hypothesis in check at the scientific level. Starve Svensmark of funding. Reject his scientific papers but give free rein to anyone who criticizes him. Trivialize the findings in the Holy Writ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. None of this is paranoia on my part, but a matter of close personal observation since 1996. _WUWT_taken from GWPF

Below is a scattering of international response to CERN's CLOUD cosmic ray experiment, taken verbatim from Anthony Watts' fine blog, Watts Up With That:

CERN Finds “Significant” Cosmic Ray Cloud Effect

Best known for its studies of the fundamental constituents of matter, the CERN particle-physics laboratory in Geneva is now also being used to study the climate. Researchers in the CLOUD collaboration have released the first results from their experiment designed to mimic conditions in the Earth’s atmosphere. By firing beams of particles from the lab’s Proton Synchrotron accelerator into a gas-filled chamber, they have discovered that cosmic rays could have a role to play in climate by enhancing the production of potentially cloud-seeding aerosols. –Physics World, 24 August 2011

If Henrik Svensmark is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal.–Terry Sloan, BBC News 3 April 2008

Henrik Svensmark welcomes the new results, claiming that they confirm research carried out by his own group, including a study published earlier this year showing how an electron beam enhanced production of clusters inside a cloud chamber. He acknowledges that the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation will not be proved until aerosols that are large enough to act as condensation surfaces are studied in the lab, but believes that his group has already found strong evidence for the link in the form of significant negative correlations between cloud cover and solar storms. Physics World, 24 August 2011

CERN’s CLOUD experiment is designed to study the formation of clouds and the idea that Cosmic Rays may have an influence. The take-home message from this research is that we just don’t understand clouds in anything other than hand-waving terms. We also understand the effects of aerosols even less. The other things to come out of it are that trace constituencies in the atmosphere seem to have a big effect on cloud formation, and that Cosmic rays also have an effect, a “significant” one according to CERN. –David Whitehouse, The Observatory, 25 August 2011

I have asked the CERN colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters. –Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of CERN, Welt Online 15 July 2011

Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth – in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia – always knew that Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases. In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk – and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise. –-Nigel Calder, 24 August 2011

Jasper Kirkby is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he’d be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun’s role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.” Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature. Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby’s path-breaking experiment — seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal– was put on ice. –Lawrence Solomon, National Post, 23 Feb 2007

_WUWT

Al Fin physicists, atmospheric scientists, and astroscientists applaud the fine work done at CERN. It is unfortunate that the multi-billion dollar orthodoxy of climate hysteria has made it so difficult to conduct meaningful basic research on the forces which impact the planet's climate.

We have long known that several types of variations in Earth's orbit could have significant effects on glaciation cycles. We have also long noted the correlation between solar sunspots and mini-ice ages, or extended cool spells in climate. Svensmark's cosmic ray theory -- relating solar cycles and cosmic ray climate effects -- appears to be supported by the recent CERN study.

The multi-billion dollar climate orthodoxy has relied on poorly conceived computer models of climate, GIGO trash compactors. The orthodoxy has compounded its mistakes by pressuring science journals, and climate scientists, not to publish research which could be seen as contradicting the orthodox carbon hysteric point of view. Eventually, the facts behind the unsavoury and unscientific behind-the-scenes maneuvers of powerful insiders such as Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, etc., will come to light -- despite the large scale politically correct attempts to cover up.

In the mean time, we can only hope that genuine scientific work will continue, against the groupthink currents of political groups such as the IPCC etc.

Will Oil Cost $500 a Barrel When the Climate Resets?

Climate Reset via WUWT
The graph above illustrates a "climate reset" occurring due to the solar cycle effect. The next abrupt climate reset is due to occur any moment now -- within the next several years. As depicted above, the "global temperature" is due to abruptly drop to average levels not seen in over 100 years, then to slowly return to near current levels near the middle of the current century.

With all the talk of "peak oil" and oil prices shooting up to $500 a barrel or above very soon, it is worth considering how modern societies will face decades of cooling weather when fuel prices are very high.

First of all, what are the valid points of the "peak oil argument?" Christophe de Margerie, the CEO of France's Total oil company, presents one of the most rational definitions of peak oil:

... he was saying that the world is fast approaching the maximum volume of oil it can possibly produce, which he reckons is about 95 million barrels a day; that's just 8 percentage points higher than the 88 million barrels a day the world consumes at the moment. _FP

A very valid point. The planet has only so many oil rigs, so many trained oil workers and engineers, so many points of production that can be brought into play -- at least until the dawn of artificially intelligent robotic oil exploration, discovery, and production.

Another valid point from the peak oil argument comes from Doug Casey, investor and man of the world:

Peak oil is a geological concept. It basically holds that all the low-hanging fruit has been picked. Now, philosophically, it rubs me the wrong way, in that I have total confidence that human ingenuity will find scores of ways to produce new hydrocarbon fuels – and lots of totally new energy sources in addition. Furthermore, the higher oil prices go, the more will be found – and the more it will be economized. So, in a free-market world, oil is a non-problem.

But we don’t currently live in that kind of world. In the meantime – let’s say the next 10-20 years – oil is an issue, for simple geological reasons. And also because, even though consumption has been basically flat in the advanced world for decades, consumption is going to grow radically in “Chindia” and the rest of the developing world. The biggest problem though is likely political, especially because of the increased political risk in the Middle East, where most of the world’s oil reserves are. You’ve got to be bullish on oil. _HoweStreet

Casey is saying two things about peak oil: 1. The sweet, light crude is becoming more rare and more dear. 2. Free market responses which would make it easy to substitute and adjust to changing supplies, are being hampered by political forces. In other words, Political Peak Oil is in play. One other point Casey is making to support his belief that oil prices are likely to shoot up: He believes that China and India will increasingly drive world oil demand for the foreseeable future.

For those reasons, Casey believes that oil could soon shoot up to $200 or $250 a barrel. If Casey's assumption about Chindia demand are correct, his conclusion on oil price could also be correct. But....

Al Fin energy futurologists and economic forecasters do not believe that India and China are ready to drive the global economic steamroller due to the many serious internal and regional problems each nation faces. And given the serious combined problems of debt and demographic decline which the current drivers of the world economy -- The Anglosphere, Japan, and Europe -- are suffering, we are more likely to see another global economic downturn before too long. This is likely to occur well before China and India are ready to steer the machine.

What does all that mean in terms of the cost of staying warm throughout the 2010s and 2020s? It means that unless the advanced nations of the world can dump their "energy starvationist" governments and learn to use the resources which are available, some societies accustomed to reliable power and heat will find it difficult to keep the lights on.

Earth's Climate Has Always Been Chaotic & Out of Control

Average temperatures in Britain could fall by two degrees centigrade, according to the study led by Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at Reading University, because of a drop in the amount of sunspot activity. _DailyMail

Little Ice Age Plunging In?
The Earth's climate is chaotic by nature, and given to drastic changes and shifts as a matter of course. The many overlapping natural cycles which contribute to global climate have been largely ignored by climate scientists -- until now.

Professor Lockwood's findings could mean the average winter temperature could drop below 2.5C, compared to the average British winter now of 5C, the newspaper reported.

In June, three different studies all concluded that sunspot activity looks set to decline over the next 10 years.

Experts said the next upswing in sunspot activity, which follows an 11-year cycle, will not be as strong as normal - or might not even happen at all.
The findings were presented at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society's solar physics division.

They said a decrease in global warming might result in the years after 2020, the approximate time when sunspots are expected to disappear for years, maybe even decades. _DailyMail

Meanwhile, climate scientists are just now beginning to admit the importance of the urban heat island effect, which has biased global temperature records upward -- contributing to the carbon hysteria which has sustained the orthodoxy of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and helped drive the bandwagon and steamroller of the great climate panic of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

More honest scientists are likewise admitting that extreme weather events have nothing to do with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

You Mustn't Believe the Lies that Green Zealots Tell. Not only about nuclear power, but about climate change, resource depletion, overpopulation, etc.

Previously published at Al Fin, the Next Level

Prolific and innovative thinker and scientist J Storrs Hall takes a look at where the climate has been, compares current climate with similar climate curves in the past, and slyly invites readers to guess where the climate is likely to be heading.

First -- Where the climate has been over the past 10,000 years or so... :

Images from WUWT
Next -- Comparing our current climate curve with similar climate curves from the past, to get an idea of a possible trajectory... :

Here I’ve plotted the 400 years following each minimum in the record that leads to a sustained sharp rise. There were 10 of them; the first five are plotted in cyan and the more recent 5 in blue. You can see that in the latter part of the Holocene the traces settle down from the wilder swings of the earlier period. Even so, every curve, even the early ones, seems to have an inflection — at least a change in slope — somewhere between 200 and 250 years after the minimum.

The hatched black line is the average of the 5 recent (blue) spikes. The red dots are the uptick at the end of GISP2 and HadSST, spliced at 1850. Note that ALL the minima dates are from GISP2. _WUWT

Then Josh invites readers to guess what will happen next, if history is any guide.

For some parts of the northern hemisphere, it may be time to get out the summer parkas.

Climate simpletons who believe that the global climate is controlled by one trace gas which constitutes less than 0.04% of the planetary atmosphere, have controlled the microphones, printing presses, funding agencies, and public stage for far too long. It is time for science to displace the politically convenient (and economically lucrative) climate hysteria, so that ordinary people can make rational plans.

Previously published at Al Fin Potpourri

Humans cannot control the climate. Humans cannot even significantly influence the climate except on a regional basis -- via land use changes and black soot effluents etc. The popular madness and delusion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming reflects badly on human governments, inter-governments, environmental organisations, and human gullibility in general.

A resilient, more skeptical, and less easily led type of human is badly needed.

More__ 6July11 __: A Reminder that Climatology is just an infant science

Solar Cycle Shutting Down: New Ice Age Next?

"The sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation," says Frank Hill of the National Solar Observatory in Sunspot, New Mexico. He and other researchers are presenting their findings this week at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society's Solar Physics Division in Las Cruces, New Mexico.

...The sun's solar cycle was interrupted once before during the so-called Maunder minimum from 1645 to 1715, when almost no sunspots appeared.

Some scientists have suggested this 70-year lull may have triggered or contributed to the pronounced cooling observed in northern Europe during this period... _NS

WUWT
Solar scientists do not understand what is up with the sun these days. Just as physicists are discovering that the sun may be driving the climate, solar scientists are frantically trying to understand what is driving the sun. Because if the sun does decide to shut down for a while, things on Earth may grow very cold of a sudden.

Three different lines of evidence suggest that the sun, which is expected to reach its maximum sunspot and magnetic activity in the current cycle in 2013, might even be entering a prolonged quiet period similar to the so-called Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period from 1645 to 1715 in which virtually no sunspots were observed. _SMH

It has been clear for some time that global climate closely tracks solar activity, mediated largely via clouds and ocean oscillations. But scientists are still in a fog as far as understanding the controlling forces of solar cycles.

A missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles say that our Sun is heading for a rest period even as it is acting up for the first time in years, according to scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)....All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while.

“If we are right,” Hill concluded, “this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.” _WUWT

Scientists are forced to monitor second and third order phenomena, and to guess at the primary -- likely chaotic -- forces at the heart of the sun, which control the observable phenomena. As for the climate of tiny planet Earth, it is at the mercy of cosmic forces.

When unscrupulous politicians and grant-hungry climatologists scream for greater funding and more control over government budgets and economic activity -- that is clearly self-interest talking. But when voters, citizens, and the public at large take these climate grifters seriously -- that is the Idiocracy.

CERN CLOUD experiment hopes to shed light on Sol :: Cosmic Ray :: Global Climate connection

David Archibald's PDF on Solar Cycle 24 and possible climate repercussions

Article: PDF on Cosmic Ray Theory by originator Henrik Svensmark

Mini Ice Age within a decade? Register via GWPF

10 Reasons to be cheerful about the coming ice age... Delingpole

National Geographic: Sun Headed into Hibernation

Remember, global cooling is far more devastating than global warming. Global cooling leads to widespread crop failures and a dramatic drop in agricultural yield. Another "little ice age," such as occurred the last time the sun went to sleep, could lead to hundreds of millions of human deaths from starvation and associated disease and warfare. Or worse. Because without current huge agricultural yields from temperate climate crops, the world's human population would be too large to sustain, as per Malthus.

What the Hell Is Going On With the Sun?

WattsUpWithThat?!?
About 2 years ago in comments at WUWT, Al Fin remarked to solar scientist Leif Svalgaard that it appeared that solar scientists did not know what the hell was going on with the sun. Leif took exception to the remark at the time. But subsequent events suggest that solar scientists do not indeed know what the hell the sun is up to. The GIF animation below from WUWT illustrates the changes in predictions over the last 3 years.

This will be at the level of the Maunder Minimum of 1675 -1715.
Previous NASA predictions below:
2010 October: Predicted peak 60-70
2009 May 29: predicted peak: 80-90 range
2009 Jan 5: predicted peak: 100-110 range
2008 Mar 28: predicted peak: 130-140 range

From the NASA page:

Current prediction for the next sunspot cycle maximum gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 59 in June/July of 2013. We are currently two years into Cycle 24 and the predicted size continues to fall. _WUWT

Want to see something really scary? Check out Solar Cycle 24 PDF download from David Archibald

More 21Jan11: Here is information on a related topic -- the influence of cosmic rays on climate. Apparently cosmic rays may play a much larger role in climate swings than the IPCC is willing to admit. Which means that the sun would play a much larger role as well.

Sun Agrees with Oceans: A Cooler Earth

Knox et Douglass IJG Vol 1 #3 PDF
According to an Internationl Journal of Geosciences paper (PDF), ocean temperatures from Argos floats show a recent cooling between 2003-2008 (via NCMediaWatch). It is difficult for the planet to warm when most of its significant thermal mass is cooling.

In summary, we find that estimates of the recent (2003–2008) OHC rates of change are preponderantly negative. This does not support the existence of either a large positive radiative imbalance or a “missing energy.” _IntJlGeosci PDF

More on ocean cooling from Roy Spencer

WattsUpWithThatOn the solar front, the sun has experienced another sudden drop in activity recently. More from WUWT:

NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) produced their monthly solar cycle progression update yesterday. The news is not encouraging. We’ve had a drop in solar activity again in December, The sunspot count is lower, but the really worrisome thing is the Ap geomagnetic index. The solar dynamo has now dropped to magnetic activity levels last seen in late 2009. Readers may recall this post from December 23rd: Solar Geomagnetic Ap Index Hits Zero which was a bit unusual this far into cycle 24. _WUWT

As this September 2010 Science Now article states: "...something peculiar has been happening."

Flashback to a 2008 warning: Sunspots May Vanish by 2015

Let's hope not. Most humans enjoy experiencing at least one warm season per year. If the planet endures many years without a summer, humans will run out of food -- as will most other animals.

Global Cooling Strikes Earth With a Vengeance?

SpotlessSun
An unusually cold and snowy December has struck across Europe, Wales, Ireland -- even Australia!!! This extreme cold goes against a brief, but multi-decadal trend of warming winters, and has many people asking whether there is an underlying (and unforeseen by climatologists) reason for the apparent switch in climate regimes?

Climate researcher David Archibald believes that there is something different about Solar Cycle 24 PDF. Archibald has come out publicly predicting that this solar cycle, and the one following, will be cycles of extremely low solar activity. Such an extended period of low solar activity may be similar to a historic cold spell that occurred between 1790 and 1830.

The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, named after the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830.[1] Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2.0°C decline over 20 years.[2] The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum. _WUWT

It is best for humans to keep in mind that their lives are deeply affected by phenomena which are far larger than any human activity -- and go far beyond the ability of humans to influence.

Do You Trust the Media to Tell the Truth About Climate Doom?

As the global temperature has cycled from cold to warm to cold to warm again, the media has followed at almost lock step with it. But media cycles of climate doom, which mirror the climate cycles themselves, have roughly a ten to fifteen year time lag. It seems whenever the world warms up the number of global warming stories increases to match the trend; conversely when the climate cools down the media pull up on their long johns and warn of the next ice age. It is forthcoming for certain. _EnergyTribune

Natural climate cycles occur due to vast driving forces which are far more powerful than anything humans are capable of doing. But news media -- ever on the lookout for fantastic stories of impending crises -- will jump on any bandwagon that promises to sell advertising and subscriptions. As we have learned, there are always scientists who are willing to help create a faux catastrophe to make names for themselves -- and to get grants and ever-more publications. In this regard, "science" and the "news" media work hand in hand.

The oceans of the world store more than one thousand times more heat than the atmosphere. The vast majority of that heat is in the tropical waters. When the oceans warm so does the atmosphere; when they cool, global temperatures follow. The Pacific Ocean covers a third of the earth’s surface and exhibits a dominant impact on the global temperature. Around 1910 the tropical Pacific Ocean began to warm. The impacts of such a warming are not always readily apparent. It takes years for glaciers and sea ice to react to the gradual ocean warming. Such was the case in the 1910s and into the 1920s.

The huge social inertia generated by the ice age scare prior to 1910 continued to drive media fear stories of upcoming cold into the 1920s. Life was not as fast in those days and social change took place more slowly. On July 3, 1923 the Christian Science Monitor reported “Captain MacMillan left Wiscasset Maine announcing that one of the purposes of his cruise was to determine whether there was the beginning of another ice age as the advance of glaciers in the last 70 years would seem to indicate.” A year later on September 18, 1924 the New York Times declared the threat was real, saying “MacMillan reports signs of new ice age.” Earlier that year on April 6 the LA Times reported that Swedish scientist Rutger Sernander claimed there was “Scientific grounds for believing” that “When all winds will bring snow, the sun cannot prevail against the clouds and three winters will come in one, with no summer between.” Seems it was global cooling that was driving the headlines at that time.

Unknown to anyone during that time was the fact that the Pacific was beginning to warm and would continue to do so until the mid 1940s. Reacting to this ocean warmth the temperature of the earth began to rise as well. Concurrently the ice age stories began to fade from the headlines. Then on March 11, 1929, just five years later from the permanent winter story, the LA Times stunned its readers: “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer and that it will continue to get warmer.” On March 27, 1933 the New York Times headline read “The next ice age, if it is coming…is still a long way off.” In the same year meteorologist J. B. Kincer of the United States Weather Bureau published in the September Monthly Weather Review: “Wide-spread and persistent tendency towards warmer weather.” He noted out of 21 winters from 1912 to 1933 in Washington D. C. 18 were warmer than normal and all of the past 13 were mild.”

During the early 1920s the Atlantic Ocean began its cyclic 25 to 30 year warming trend. This warmer water combined with the warmer Pacific pumped up world temperature to the point where everyone began to take notice. By November 6, 1939 the Chicago Tribune published a story “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise.” The story noted that “Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities throughout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend towards warmer climate in the last two decades.” They knew it was warming but not why.

On August 2, 1952 the New York Times reported that Eskimos were eating cod, a fish not previously in their diet. The following year the Times reported that studies confirmed that summers and winters were getting warmer and it was because the oceans were changing again. _EnergyTribune

Human science is barely learning the truth behind various overlapping natural drivers of climate change -- and the vastly complex terrestrial mechanism for converting the driving forces into climate. The overly-simplified, over-hyped crusade of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming orthodoxy, is an empty shell of pseudo-scientific blather. The deeper you look into politicised science, the nastier and more destructive it looks.

A Nobel Prize Physicist Questions the Climate Dogma

Robert B. Laughlin Nobel Prize Physics 1998Climate science is not a deep mystery that is only open to a few persons who have devoted their lifetimes to the topic. To understand climate science one must use the same type of reasoning, and the same type of tools, which scientists and technological / technical investigators in dozens of fields routinely utilise. Far from being glowing untouchables, climate scientists are justly vulnerable to a wide range of criticisms and judgments from persons with a wide range of backgrounds.

Here is one critical look at modern climate science by a 1998 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Robert B. Laughlin:

Earth scientists tend to be ultraconservative when it comes to the future, presumably because the scientific ethic forbids mixing speculation with fact, and go to extraordinary lengths to prove by means of measurement that the globe is warming now, the ocean is acidifying now, fossil fuel is being exhausted now, and so forth, even though these things are self-evident in geologic time. The unhappy result is more and more data but less and less understanding—a common problem in science but an especially acute problem in climatology. In such situations it’s essential to weigh facts more strongly if they are simple, and use this practice to sweep away confusion whenever you can.

The sea’s immense capacity to store carbon dioxide is one of the simple things with which you can reliably orient yourself. It’s a junior-high-school science-fair project. Leave a glass of distilled water on the counter overnight, and by the next morning it will have become slightly acid, due to the absorption of carbon dioxide from the air. It hasn’t absorbed much—about the amount stored in an equal volume of air—so this effect alone will not sequester much carbon. But drop a piece of limestone in the water, thereby emulating the presence of carbonate rocks at the bottom of the sea, and you will find the next morning that the water becomes slightly alkaline, and the amount of carbon dissolved in the water is now 60 times greater than it was before. After tinkering a bit to figure out where this carbon came from, you eventually discover that half came from the limestone and half came from the air. It all has to do with the marvelous (and elementary) chemistry of bicarbonate salts. You also find that the alkalinity of the water matches that of seawater, as does the carbon dioxide carrying capacity. Thus we learn that the oceans have dissolved in them, in the form of bicarbonate ion, 40 times more carbon than the atmosphere contains, a total of 30 trillion tons, or 30 times the world’s coal reserves.

...A local beach a short drive from my home is backed by cliffs about 100 feet high that expose alternating layers of sandstone, mudstone, and aggregate, perhaps seven layers in all. You can tell without having attended a single geology class that these layers were formed by the action of water, the most likely candidate being the nearby ocean, especially in light of the fossilized clamshells entombed in some of the layers. Yet there they are high and dry, integrated into the rolling hills beyond, as though they were the sliced edge of a huge layer cake.

...The continents have moved up and down over the course of geologic time a greater distance than the sea is deep. We know this because the total thickness of sedimentary rock in some places exceeds four kilometers... now the oceans have been thoroughly surveyed, and oil technologies such as echo stratigraphy and deep drilling routinely find sedimentary rock layers 10 to 15 kilometers thick. The most sensational example of such thicknesses is the Grand Canyon, which required a three-kilometer uplift from sea level to be cut by the Colorado River, and which forms, together with Utah’s Escalante Staircase, a total sedimentary mass 10 kilometers thick.

...The geologic record as we know it thus suggests that climate is a profoundly grander thing than energy. Energy procurement is a matter of engineering and keeping the lights on under circumstances that are likely to get more difficult as time progresses. Climate change, by contrast, is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself. The earth doesn’t include the potentially catastrophic effects on civilization in its planning. Far from being responsible for damaging the earth’s climate, civilization might not be able to forestall any of these terrible changes once the earth has decided to make them. Were the earth determined to freeze Canada again, for example, it’s difficult to imagine doing anything except selling your real estate in Canada. If it decides to melt Greenland, it might be best to unload your property in Bangladesh. The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control. _AmericanScholar_via_ClimateDepot

The scandal emanating from the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climate Research Unit -- popularly referred to as "ClimateGate" -- should have disabused more intelligent observers of any delusions they may have held about the honesty, scrupulousness, good faith, or scientific openness and integrity of several individuals high in the IPCC scientific hierarchy.

The IPCC and its inner circle have used just about every dirty trick and dishonest device known to journalism, public relations, and propaganda. See "AmazonGate" for another example. The orthodoxy of climate catastrophe has all the markings of a quasi-criminal scam. All you need to do once you wise up to that fact, is to "follow the money." Who is racking up frequent flier miles and big martini and massage expense accounts, writing jet exhaust on the atmosphere the entire world around? Who stands to gain from the $mega-billion cap and trade scams being pushed by most European countries and Obama Pelosi? Not a pretty picture.

If you believe in "climate change" (isn't the climate ALWAYS changing?), you may want to clear the cobwebs of that part of your brain and begin to exercise your own judgment -- rather than letting the sleazes and scam artists do it for you.

More: Here is a look at the environmental devastation that is being caused by climate hysterics such as the IPCC and those who take them seriously. h/t Climate Depot

Unprecedented Ocean Cooling?

Spencer
Now that we have a network of ocean sensing satellites (NASA Aqua) we can finally start to obtain some reliable ocean temperature data. The oceans hold 1,000 times as much heat as does the atmosphere. The ocean is also 100 times as important as land area in terms of heat balance and transfer. So when the ocean starts to cool this fast, you know that a change is coming!

Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) measured by the AMSR-E instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite continue their plunge as a predicted La Nina approaches.

...To give some idea of what is causing the global-average SST to fall so rapidly, I came up with an estimate of the change in reflected sunlight (shortwave, or SW flux) using our AMSR-E total integrated cloud water amounts....What this shows is an unusually large increase in reflected sunlight over the last several months, probably due to an increase in low cloud cover.

At this pace of cooling, I suspect that the second half of 2010 could ruin the chances of getting a record high global temperature for this year. _Spencer_via_Wattsupwiththat

More at links above.

A decline in ocean temperatures suggests a global heat deficit -- which runs contrary to the orthodox climate religion of Mr. Gore and Obama Pelosi. Winters have already started to grow colder, with many Northern Hemisphere ski resorts staying open into May or June this year. If the shift to La Nina is combined with a recently eerily quiet sun, the consequent cooling may be unpleasant.

If winters get too much colder, Obama Pelosi may have to reconsider their half-hatched plans for national energy starvation.

Negative Climate Feedbacks Mock Carbon Hysteria

Bill Gates has donated $300,000 to Silver Lining, a San Francisco group that wants to spray a microscopic seawater mist into the sky -- to reflect sunlight back into space -- for purposes of cooling the planet. Such "anthropogenic negative climate feedback" would be adjustable -- so that if the planet became too cool, they could turn off the misting until things heated up again.

But are such geoengineering schemes really necessary? Climate scientist Roy Spencer says the oceans are already doing a very fine job of natural negative feedback moderation of global heat cycles -- whether natural or manmade. Recent "unprecedented" drops in ocean temperatures suggest that there is more going on than the climate catastrophe orthodoxy understands. And while climate change is real (climate always changes), the underlying mechanisms of climate change remain largely unknown to human science.

WattsUpWithThat
In fact, human science has barely begun to grasp the mechanisms of climate and climate change. Mobs of criminals have grasped onto "climate change" as a means of ripping off investors and taxpayers (via ClimateDepot). And the further governments dig themselves into the climate hysteria hole, the more devastating will be the economic fallout for their citizens.

WattsUpWithThat
It is time to call a "time out" from the hysteria, and to begin an intensive program of data collection, correlation, and analysis. There is nothing moral or enlightened about being hoodwinked and bamboozled by criminals and opportunists.

H/T Tom Nelson

Caution: Glaciation In Progress

ImpactLab
The Arctic winter of 2009:2010 reached its chill fingers an "unprecedented" distance into spring -- to March 31. Never before in the reliable human record of Arctic sea ice extent, has the freeze season lasted until so late in the year.

Does this mean that we are on the brink of a new ice age? Not necessarily. Earth's climate consists of cycles within cycles within cycles. And the satellite human record of Arctic sea ice extent only goes back to 1979.

Meanwhile, orthodox catastrophic predictions of the demise of the Arctic are proving to be somewhat premature. Time to abandon carbon hysteria? Only if you are intelligent and honest. If you owe your livelihood to the alarmist orthodoxy of climate catastrophe, you may feel obligated to maintain the pretense a bit longer -- until retirement, or the kids get through college, or some other arbitrary guidepost allowing a reversion to honesty.

Sun Takes Unprecedented Holiday

As the theory goes, lower magnetic activity of the sun lets more GCR’s into our solar system, which produce microscopic cloud seed trails (like in a Wilson cloud chamber) in our atmosphere, resulting in more cloud cover, resulting in a cooler planet. Ric Werme has a nice pictorial here.

When I saw the SWPC Ap geomagnetic index for Dec 2009 posted yesterday, my heart sank. With the sunspot activity in December, I thought surely the Ap index would go up. Instead, it crashed. _WUWT

Many of us were hoping that the modest resumption of sunspots in mid December -- after a few years of very rare sunspots -- would signal the sun's intention to "power up" to full strength. Unfortunately, an important measure of solar activity -- the geomagnetic index "Ap" -- has recently crashed to unprecedented levels. Ap is now too low to measure, for all practical purposes.

With the Ap index dwindling to a wisp of magnetism, it bolsters the argument made by Livingston and Penn that sunspots may disappear altogether by 2015. See Livingston and Penn – Sunspots may vanish by 2015....The theory goes that once the magnetic strength falls below 1500 gauss, sunspots will become invisible to us. _WUWT

According to the Svensmark cosmic ray theory, it is a low geomagnetic index -- such as we see now -- that allows galactic cosmic rays to penetrate the heliosphere, reaching Earth's atmosphere and inducing more cloud formation. More clouds tend to block solar rays, leading to a cooler climate. NASA has already predicted that the next solar cycle -- cycle 25 -- will have very low activity, as the solar conveyor slows. What NASA failed to see was that cycle 24 would have such low activity.

If multiple long, slow solar cycles begin to line up in a row -- like airliners waiting in a queue at Chicago's O'Hare -- Earth's climate may be in for a long, cold few decades.

Physicist Forecasts 50 Years of Global Cooling

Physicist Quing-bin Lu has published a study in the respected journal Physics Reports, that discovered a link between cosmic rays and climate change.  The same study finds that anthropogenic CO2 is not an important factor in global climate change.

Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth’s ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.

In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs - compounds once widely used as refrigerants - and cosmic rays - energy particles originating in outer space - are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.

”My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,” Lu said. “Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming....”

In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations. _HeraldSun

Research based upon observations is preferable to climate models that incorporate faulty data, include erroneous assumptions, and whose findings are edited by means similar to the way Hollywood directors edit feature films post-production in order to match a pre-determined finding.

Qing-bin Lu's findings are interesting, and will require confirmation. It will be interesting to see which climate research funding agencies will find the courage to step away from the herd of cattle, and begin funding genuine climate science for a change.

A Journey Through Time and Temperature

A graphic journey through hundreds of thousands of years of global temperatures, as represented by ice core isotopes (deuterium and Oxygen 18). Notice the cycles, and how the "alarming" hockey stick tends to shrink in importance as we gain a wider historical perspective. Unprecedented? Hardly.

Learning the history of things is important, if you are smart, curious, and honest. If you are a psychological neotenate and academic lobotomate -- in other words a modern zombie product of popular culture and political correctness -- just go back to sleep!

via WattsupWithThat? At WUWT you can find links to several versions of J. Storrs Hall's graphic series of official research data, including a YouTube version.

In Solar Powered Climate CO2 is Secondary In Solar Powered Climate CO2 is Secondary

The following is excerpted from a PDF document titled "The Sun Defines the Climate" by Russian academician Habibullo Abdussamatov. (see here or here for more discussion) The document describes one means by which solar variability drives Earth's (and Mars') climate, in conjunction with the ocean cycles and the water cycle. The reason for the far less important influence of CO2 on the climate is explained.

Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop (Fig. 7, 11). Meantime the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over these years has grown by more than 4%, and in 2006 many meteorologists predicted that 2007 would be the hottest of the last decade. This did not occur, although the global temperature of the Earth would have increased at least 0.1 degree if it depended on the concentration of carbon dioxide. It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming.

The earth is no longer threatened by the catastrophic global warming forecast by some scientists; warming passed its peak in 1998-2005, while the value of the TSI by July - September of last year had already declined by 0.47 W/m2 (Fig. 1).
For several years until the beginning in 2013 of a steady temperature drop, in a phase of instability, temperature will oscillate around the maximum that has been reached, without further substantial rise. Changes in climatic conditions will occur unevenly, depending on latitude. A temperature decrease in the smallest degree would affect the equatorial regions and strongly influence the temperate climate zones. The changes will have very serious consequences, and it is necessary to begin preparations even now, since there is practically no time in reserve. The global temperature of the Earth has begun its decrease without limitations on the volume of greenhouse gas emissions by industrially developed countries; therefore the implementation of the Kyoto protocol aimed to rescue the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off at least 150 years.

Consequently, we should fear a deep temperature drop, but not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming. However, a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis. _

When you hear yet another news story describing how modern humans must revert to the stone ages to prevent catastrophic global warming, keep in mind that there is no catastrophic global warming outside of overheated brains of corrupt politicians, UN officials, and grant hungry former scientists.